Binding precedent on acquisition compensation defeated later appeals; procedural objections could not justify a meaningless remand.

A prior Supreme Court decision on the same acquisition notification and compensation issue bound the later appeals under Article 141. Because the earlier ruling had already examined the valuation evidence and upheld the Land Acquisition Officer's award, the challenge to compensation could not be reopened. The objections based on res judicata, irregular listing, absence of counsel, and pending substitution applications did not justify remand, since any remand would have been only formal and could not alter the settled issue. The compensation challenge therefore failed, the High Court's disposal was left undisturbed, and recovery of amounts already paid was restrained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier decision on compensation for lands acquired under the same notification and in the same villages bound the present appeals, notwithstanding objections based on res judicata, alleged procedural irregularities in the High Court, and the request for remand.

Analysis: The lands in the present appeals were acquired under the same acquisition notification and involved the same question of adequacy of compensation already examined in the earlier decision. The earlier judgment had considered the valuation evidence, the Reference Court's enhancement, and the High Court's reversal, and had concluded that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was just and that no interference was warranted. A prior decision of this Court on the same question of law and on the same statutory acquisition process operates as a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The plea of res judicata was rejected because the principle does not govern the present situation in the manner contended. The objections based on non-listing of some matters, absence of counsel in some appeals, and pending substitution applications did not justify a different result, because remand would have been only an empty formality once the governing issue had already been settled by the earlier decision.

Conclusion: The earlier decision was binding on the present appeals, the procedural objections did not warrant remand, and the challenge to the compensation failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals could not succeed because the compensation issue had already been conclusively settled for the same acquisition, and the High Court's disposal was left undisturbed, with a limited restraint against recovery of amounts already paid.

Ratio Decidendi: A prior decision of the Supreme Court on the same acquisition notification and the same legal question binds later Benches under Article 141, and procedural objections cannot displace that binding effect where remand would be purely formal.

---